On 27 April 2015 at 04:32, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/24/2015 09:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> On 24 April 2015 at 12:55, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/24/2015 03:15 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14 April 2015 at 15:12, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> msm8974 has gcc and mmcc nodes, and apq8084 has a gcc node which >>>>> implement gdsc powerdomains. Add the #power-domain-cells property >>>>> to them. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi | 1 + >>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi | 2 ++ >>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi >>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi >>>>> index 1f130bc..55c281c 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi >>>>> @@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ >>>>> compatible = "qcom,gcc-apq8084"; >>>>> #clock-cells = <1>; >>>>> #reset-cells = <1>; >>>>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>; >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So the PM domain will be apart of the clock-controller. That's a bit >>>> odd, but I guess the hardware is like that!? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, the gdscs are all part of GCC controller. >>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, what I fail to understand from this patchset is who will be >>>> the actual consumer of the PM domain? In other words, what devices >>>> will hold the below property in its DT node? >>>> >>>> power_domains = <phandle index>; >>>> >>>> This is needed for genpd to have the device at probe time, attached to >>>> its PM domain. >>> >>> >>> >>> Any device which belongs to the collapsible power domain (gdsc) >>> Examples are graphics, camera, video encode/decode block (venus) etc >> >> >> Then I expect those drivers to deploy runtime PM (if not already) and >> thus gdsc's PM domain will come into play. > > > Most of these drivers aren;t upstream yet. And one of the reasons I am > trying to get gdsc support upstream is so these drivers can then be > pushed upstream, with runtime support. That's great news! I am happy to help reviewing, if you like. > >> >> But how will that relate to the GCC controller? >> >> For example when the gdsc's PM domain is about to be powered off, >> since all the devices within it has be runtime PM suspended. What >> happens with the GCC controller then? > > > I don;t seem to completely understand what you are asking. Are you > asking if the GCC controller itself is part of a collapsible power > domain? Yes. Sorry for being a bit vague... If the gdsc's PM domain is powered off, what happens with the GCC's clocks? Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
